Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'proposal'.
Found 1 result
Yes. Yes it is. Before any stone is thrown, there are valid historical designs that can make it to the line. https://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/zplan/cruiser/kreuzerm/tech.html https://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/zplan/cruiser/kreuzerq/index.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-class_cruiser And this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_cruiser_Lützow_(1939) “Lützow was originally designed as a light cruiser version of the Admiral Hipper-class heavy cruisers, armed with twelve 15 cm (5.9 in) guns instead of the Admiral Hipper's eight 20.3 cm (8.0 in) guns.” And an image (from somewhere I fail to remember): A bit of a disclaimer: the estimated HP, based on the ships’ standard/full displacement, for the ships aren’t 100% accurate (but I did some tests and the results are very close). WarGaming may use different sources for the ships’ displacements. It’s a formula(s) I stole from someone I know and I do not have the permission to give them to anyone else. The line: VII: M-class Q-class VIII: Hull A Hipper with Königsberg's guns IX: Hipper with Nürnberg's guns X: (Slightly) Modified Hull B Roon with Nürnberg's guns Let’s get into the details: M-CLASS Q-SUBCLASS PROPOSED DESIGN OF LÜTZOW Opinions: + The line in general: I know WG could always make brand new models for the ships but it’d be much easier to put existing models on existing models. That’s basically the concept of the Lützow light cruiser proposal, right? RIGHT??? + Traits: Tanky light cruisers? I mean the M and Q even have “sloped decks”. While I cannot confirm what it truly means, but I assume that “sloped decks” are essentially something similar to “turtleback armor”. “Turtleback armor” is not a technical term by the way. If you view armor profile of a ship like Hindenburg and select to show only the ship’s vital part (the citadel), you will see sloped “sides” of the citadel box, and those edges are called “armored citadel deck slopes”, whose thickness is 60 mm. On German battleships, the armor is arranged differently, so you can’t truly view the actual thickness of the slopes. But they are there. “Sloped deck” on light cruisers. German through and through. The later ships are, of course, as tanky as German heavy cruisers get. That fact needs no more advertisement. 1/4 HE pen, like the heavy cruiser line. + Consumables: I can’t think of any except being identical to the heavy cruiser line already in the game. Would Radar be a good thing? I mean German Hydro is already too good, I don’t think having “German radar” on these ships would be much better than just popping German Hydro, which is long-ranged, lasts longer and can also detect torpedoes. Maybe better Repair Party? Myabe no catapult aircraft (I can see this happen)? + M and Q: Due to the similarities between M-class and Q-class (they are of the same class anyway), I can think of 2 ways: Q-class would the Hull B of M-class -OR- M-class gets in the game as the T7 for the new tech tree, Q-class is a semi-clone as a T6 premium ship. I do have a concern that other T7 cruisers in the game have much better HP pool than those ships (ALL of them to be correct), but M and Q do feature excellent speed and their “sloped decks”. + Lützow: I can think of splitting this CL Hipper into two. This is not a very good way to implement them, admittedly. One as T8 and one as T9. The T8 version will have the 150 mm turrets from Königsberg (7,5s reload) and the T9 (the historical, proposed Lützow) will actually have her designed guns from Nürnberg (6s reload). Since both of the ships would be light cruisers, there would be little problem if the ships have smaller HP pool. For example, all US heavy cruisers will have larger HP pool than all US light cruisers of the same tier – Des Moines’ 50,3k versus Worcester’s 45,4 k. In-game Hipper has 37,3k (Hull A) and 43,8k HP (Hull B), having about the same or slightly more HP than Hull B of some T9 cruisers (Donskoi, Seattle, Ibuki and even Zao – a T10). The very good reload will make up for protection (as if they even lack protection). What I don’t like is making the same ship (the same hull) two different ships in a ship line. But KGV and Monarch exist. Thank to WG for setting the precedence. Also I’d like point out that if the design indeed only changes the main guns of the Hipper-class, then the Fire Control System would still be the same, which means the firing range of these ships would be the best of all the light cruisers in the game: 17.7 km (FCS module B) versus Worcester’s 16.7 km). Even with FCS module A, at 16.1 km, it’s already better than Minotaur. Coupled with the impressive 6s reload, this ship can be really really powerful. + Tier 9 and 10: Alternatively, a light cruiser using Roon’s hull and Königsberg’s guns would do well at T9. Probably too well because of the huge HP pool for a light cruiser. It’s a German ship. It would be characteristically overweight. The last ship of the line would be a largely fabricated design (who’d have thought?) and I can think of 1 of 2 ways. If the T9 is indeed a ship based on Roon’s hull, then the T10 could be using Hindenburg’s hull with Nürnberg’s guns. Admittedly, a ship with Hindenburg’s hull and Nürnberg’s guns can be a very powerful ship in the game. Roon’s hull can have 4 turrets on it easily because: Nürnberg’s turrets are much smaller than Roon’s turrets (being a smaller caliber) and the forward superstructure can be pushed back just a bit to make space for the additional 150 mm turret. Here are my proposed stats of the T8 and T10, T7 is M-class and T9 is the historical proposed Lützow: TIER VIII TIER X